The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

antrobus

davomcdave wrote: »

The problem the SNP has with honesty is that GERS figures show that Scotland would be utterly FUBAR'd without Londoners sending billions of pounds north every year. ...

I've pointed that out a number of times on this thread. As far as I can see, answer has been there none to the vexed question of what fiscal measures any hypothetical independent Scotland would take to reduce its fiscal deficit from 9.5% of GDP.

davomcdave wrote: »

..That and of course there is still no solution to the currency problem (Scottish Groat/Euro Fail/Pound with no influence on monetary policy)....

The solution to the currency problem is obvious. This hypothetical independent Scotland would have a Scottish pound with parity (at least initally) to the GBP pound. The real problem is that the SNP don't want to spell this out. Having your own central bank isn't cheap. The Scottish White Paper Project, written by a bunch of nationalists, quotes a figure if £10 billion just to set one up, a number which qualifies as 'real money'.

(And there isn't much choice about the matter. Prospective members of the EU/EEA/EFTA are required to have a central bank.)

davomcdave wrote: »

...The fact is that Scotland would be in an unholy mess without taxes from London propping it up. Frankly the best hope the SNP has, assuming it wants independence at any price, is that Brexit screws the British economy so badly that there is no perceived difference between a mucked up British economy and the pathetic state that is the Scottish economy ex-oil...

I believe that the SNP plan is to create the fear that Brexit will screw up the British economy so badly, and hope that is sufficient to change people's mind. That's why they want to wait over a year before this 'referendum' is held, to give the cybernats the time for Project Fear to work.

davomcdave wrote: »

..As it goes I think that it is quite possible that Brexit could reduce the English economy to the level of Scotland's but then what do I know, I'm only an economist. Experts? Ptchew,

Brexit will, of course, impact the British economy as a whole. Although there might be a differences between its regional effects.

I remain perplexed however, as to why, if the UK's withdrawal from the European Union is going to be such an economic disaster, one should not also assume that Sotland's withdrawal from the UK union will also be an economic disaster.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

A lie, hardly.
Both of those were both before the decision of Brexit.
The circumstances are far different now from then

One could argue it was setting a basis (and delay) for when a call for a referendum with no other reasons should be set and reason why NS was not advocating for a referendum at any time

No.

It matters not what happened since.
Circumstances change but the opinion of the electorate has not - certainly not enough.
If you say you want above 60% consistently and yet you do not get that - and still do what you said you would not then that is being dishonest; it is lying.

There were no conditions in the original "we need 60%" stance; no "if's", no "but's" and no "maybe's
As well as the continued majority against in polls, no good reason has been forthcoming for the change in stance.

You may say "but Scotland voted to keep the EU" as a reason.
Again I must point to independence polls post-referendum.
None of which shows a consistent, significant majority in favour of independence.
Hence the UK government stance; no referendum.

IveSeenTheLight

Comments below, then I need to go

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No. No to what? I didn't pose a question

It matters not what happened since. Of course it does
Circumstances change but the opinion of the electorate has not - certainly not enough.
If you say you want above 60% consistently and yet you do not get that - and still do what you said you would not then that is being dishonest; it is lying. I'd need to dig a bit more than your two hyperlink, but I do not necessarily think it is lying. It merely points to a preferred polling position before starting a case for another referendum in the absence of any fundamental factors

There were no conditions in the original "we need 60%" stance; no "if's", no "but's" and no "maybe's I didn't also see that these were the only conditions
As well as the continued majority against in polls, no good reason has been forthcoming for the change in stance. Ignorance is a virtue. They have been well documented and discussed even in here

You may say "but Scotland voted to keep the EU" as a reason.
Again I must point to independence polls post-referendum.
None of which shows a consistent, significant majority in favour of independence.
Hence the UK government stance; no referendum. An unelected Pm stance. We'll see how that pans out

antrobus

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No.

It matters not what happened since.
Circumstances change but the opinion of the electorate has not - certainly not enough.
If you say you want above 60% consistently and yet you do not get that - and still do what you said you would not then that is being dishonest; it is lying.

There were no conditions in the original "we need 60%" stance; no "if's", no "but's" and no "maybe's
As well as the continued majority against in polls, no good reason has been forthcoming for the change in stance.

You may say "but Scotland voted to keep the EU" as a reason.
Again I must point to independence polls post-referendum.
None of which shows a consistent, significant majority in favour of independence.
Hence the UK government stance; no referendum.

As of 19 March 2017.

There were a couple of Scottish independence polls in the week, but both of these that had fieldwork that actually pre-dated Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a second referendum. The Sunday Times today have the first Scottish poll carried out after Sturgeon’s speech, conducted by Panelbase between Monday and Friday.

Voting intention in a second referendum stands at YES 44%, NO 56%, similar to that in the YouGov poll in the week. As I said then, there are conflicting pictures from different pollsters. YouGov and Panelbase are both showing support for independence at a very similar level to the 2014 referendum, the most recent BMG and MORI polls have shown a narrowing of the NO lead.

Scotland also remains split over whether or not to have a second referendum. About half want a referendum in the next few years (32% while Brexit negotiations are ongoing, 18% after the end of negoiations), 51% do not want a referendum in the next few years.

Westminster voting intentions in Scotland stand at SNP 47%, CON 28%, LAB 14%, LDEM 4%, UKIP 3%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9821

Same difference.:)

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No.

It matters not what happened since.
Circumstances change but the opinion of the electorate has not - certainly not enough.
If you say you want above 60% consistently and yet you do not get that - and still do what you said you would not then that is being dishonest; it is lying.

There were no conditions in the original "we need 60%" stance; no "if's", no "but's" and no "maybe's
As well as the continued majority against in polls, no good reason has been forthcoming for the change in stance.

You may say "but Scotland voted to keep the EU" as a reason.
Again I must point to independence polls post-referendum.
None of which shows a consistent, significant majority in favour of independence.
Hence the UK government stance; no referendum.

None of this matters now. May refusing, and I mean refusing/ruling one out/saying No not happening ( rather than 'is not the time' ) would now be something that directly conflicts with the democratic will of the Scottish parliament itself.
This will have far reaching constitutional consequences for a 'union' which go far and way beyond the Brexit vote AND go all the way back to 1707. Both Sturgeon and May know this. May is going to be pressed for Yes or No answer to the Scottish Govt in the coming weeks.

There are many constitutional grey areas that have never been tested in law nor clarified since the Scottish parliament was reconvened in 1999. What happens when the will of the Scottish electorate differs greatly with those in the rUK and a party being in power implementing policies they never voted for being one of them. Replacing the words Scottish Parliament or Government with the word 'SNP' doesn't make constitutional issues disappear I'm afraid.

The principle remains the same. Has Mrs May the backbone to open up this massive constitutional can of worms by over riding basic and fair democracy in Scotland. We'll see in the coming weeks. But constantly going on about opinion polls and what they say is getting boring. The do not matter in this context, that would be the ballot box as ISTL points out.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Comments below, then I need to go

Ah.
It would appear that you are a prevaricator then.
May I very politely suggest you re-read before replying to a post?

Firstly because nowhere have I said or suggested that you asked a question; my "No" was a response to your entire post.
Which like others you have posted, including the one above are incorrect in their entirety.

Another because it is so sad to see a response in debate which includes the by now tired phrase "An unelected Pm".
Please clarify if you would how any British PM is elected?

So I sadly draw the conclusion that you are another poster who attempts to drown out debate by use of multiple and largely irrelevant posts.
Not unusual in this thread where you are in good company.
Fortunately enough of us are usually available to neutralise the intended effects of this.

mollycat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So I sadly draw the conclusion that you are another poster who attempts to drown out debate by use of multiple and largely irrelevant posts.
Not unusual in this thread where you are in good company.
Fortunately enough of us are usually available to neutralise the intended effects of this.

Well said AMSJ.

Had arrived at that conclusion myself! :rotfl:

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Voter turnout fluctuates.
I believe it is everyone's prerogative to get out there and vote on their preferences.

The fact remains, that 62% (every single local authority area) of the vote chose to remain



Not at all, Nicola Sturgeon campaigned vehemently for remain and would not have a mandate for another Independence referendum if the democratic will of the Scottish people aligned with the democratic outcome of the UK.

Its a pity that others also campaigning for remain were not so quick to jump ship.

Yes, she did didn't she...

"Vote with independence in mind"

I'll never forget it, and I'm not about to let the delusional indy protagonists forget it either.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah.
It would appear that you are a prevaricator then.
May I very politely suggest you re-read before replying to a post?

Firstly because nowhere have I said or suggested that you asked a question; my "No" was a response to your entire post.
Which like others you have posted, including the one above are incorrect in their entirety.

Another because it is so sad to see a response in debate which includes the by now tired phrase "An unelected Pm".
Please clarify if you would how any British PM is elected?

So I sadly draw the conclusion that you are another poster who attempts to drown out debate by use of multiple and largely irrelevant posts.
Not unusual in this thread where you are in good company.
Fortunately enough of us are usually available to neutralise the intended effects of this.

Get over yourself AMSJ you're chatting on a forum not trying to negotiate a peace process at the UN lol. :rotfl:

ISTL I'm afraid there are some posters here that enjoy deviating from the topic and issues at hand in favour of potting at individual posters and posting styles rather than really debating anything of any substance. Even to the extent of starting threads for other forum members to pass judgement about them.

Tiresome in the extreme but there you go. But threads like these would never last long if everyone stooped into personal grievance. You know the way it is having been a poster here for several years already, but a heads up just in case.

TrickyTree83

mollycat wrote: »

Eh?

How would that work.

People in Scotland dont 'all want and need the same thing you know.

Just like the rest of the UK there is a wide and diverse range of political views here.

Maybe you are one of these people who think it's the specific piece of earth you stand on that defines your character, beliefs and values?

I have more in common with a 50+ year old, public sector employee, ex-factory working, housing scheme raised, comprehensive educated person in Stoke, Cardiff, Ballymena or London than I ever will have with you or any of the other pro-indy posters on here.

Divisive and dangerous; that's what Scottish nationalism is.

mollycat... what that poster is forgetting is that the Scottish government in the EU would not be looking solely after the will of Scottish people.

However a UK government outside of the EU would be solely looking after UK people, which currently includes Scotland. In terms of voicing opinion in a union, the UK gives Scotland far greater voice than the EU does now or will ever do.

I wonder how the poster intends to square that circle? (along with the others they've conjured up thus far since coming back).